Welcome to this new journal of the Social Policy Association, whose fundamental aim is to bring the study of social policy to a wider audience. It intends to mark itself out as distinct from its older sister, the Journal of Social Policy, the leading journal in the discipline, yet at the same time remain closely associated with it and complement its work. Drawing upon research and developments in all key social sciences, the journal will aim to provide an important new outlet for relevant, contemporary and stimulating articles from the specialist and non-specialist alike on a wide variety of issues concerning public and social policy. Articles can be theoretical or empirical in nature (or both) or speculative, but all will be authoritatively written.

In its proposals for achieving a better ‘work–life balance’ for Britain's working families, the New Labour government is also seeking to balance the interests of business against the needs of families. This article argues that the economic policy ‘trilemma’ resulting from economic globalisation is mirrored in a parallel family policy trilemma, with particular consequences for the poorest families. Drawing upon this argument and, partly, upon illustrative evidence from a small-scale qualitative study of low-income working families, it is suggested that promoting family friendly employment alongside a policy of welfare-to-work cannot reasonably be achieved without significant additional regulation of low-paying employers.

This article contributes to the growing literature concerning the necessity and desirability of democratising the UK welfare state. It takes a theoretical approach by exploring some of the key influences on contemporary debates: risk society, governmentality, the new social democracy and associational welfare. The article suggests that none of these supplies the theoretical foundations of a welfare democracy and that another approach must be found. It concludes that only by engaging with the debate concerning deliberative democracy can social policy find a way forward. The key is to emancipate social time through an alternative ethic to that of paid employment.

In this paper we describe regional differences in partnering and parenting within Britain, using indices of the ‘Motherhood Employment Effect’ to indicate different geographical levels of adherence to the ‘traditional’ male breadwinner/female homemaker family, and of ‘Family Conventionality’ to indicate geographical differences in ‘good-enough parenting’. The geography of family formations thus described does not follow the better known ‘north–south’ or ‘urban–rural’ geographies of economic performance and prosperity, and we speculate as to how this relatively unfamiliar family geography may be related to the existence of regional gender cultures.

For much of the post-war period, the advanced industrial nations of Europe congratulated themselves on having it both ways: successful capitalist economies which also provided effective welfare states – affluence plus social justice. Commentators have traditionally seen social democracy as the friend of social welfare. More recently, the virtuous liaison of social democratic politics with successful democratic welfare capitalism has been called into question. Welfare states face pressures from economic globalisation, population ageing, spending constraint and changes in labour markets and in family patterns; it is argued that traditional social democratic approaches find it difficult to pursue policies that will enable welfare states to adapt and continue to combine high social standards with economic growth in the changed conditions of the twenty-first century. In short, the social democratic welfare state is outmoded.

In 1995, over 100 countries signed up to this statement in the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action at the UN World Summit for Social Development. The second section of this article reflects on an initiative in the UK, which aims to make a reality of the Copenhagen commitment around the demand for the involvement of people in poverty in decision making that affects their lives. The first, longer, section makes a normative theoretical case for such action.

For a long time, the discussion about the impact of economic globalisation on the full employment/generous welfare state policies pursued by social democratic governments was characterised by doom and gloom. Glib neo-liberal arguments about the impossibility of maintaining social democratic policies, that were presumably hindering competitiveness through excessive wages and taxes in the new international environment were difficult to counter, because social democrats could not resort to an equally elaborate and internally consistent economic doctrine that could substitute for evidence, and the evidence was not yet in to counter these arguments on empirical grounds. Recently, careful and comprehensive comparative studies have provided evidence that, despite undeniable problems posed by economic internationalisation, social democratic welfare states and employment regimes have proven to be highly resilient (Scharpf and Schmidt, 2000; Huber and Stephens, 2001). Indeed, some kinds of traditional social democratic policy, such as an emphasis on labour mobilisation through active labour market policy and social services that make it possible to combine labour force participation with raising children, and an emphasis on human capital formation have facilitated adaptation to the new economic conditions. Moreover, newly available data on skill distribution (OECD/HRDC, 2000) and income distribution (LIS) suggest that the egalitarian thrust characteristic of social democratic policy has made an important contribution to raising literacy skills at the bottom, which in turn facilitates the integration of the entire labour force into productive activities that are competitive in high-quality markets.

It has been claimed that there is a global Third Way (TW) debate. Giddens (2001: 1) writes that, ‘Across the world left of centre governments are attempting to institute third way programmes – whether or not they favour the term itself. ‘ He claims that there are self-declared third way parties in power in the UK, New Zealand, Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina and Chile, among many other countries. Similarly, according to Blair (2001), the ideas associated with the TW are still the wave of the future for progressive politics. From Latin America to Europe to parts of Asia, TW politics or ‘progressive government’ is exerting a huge influence on global politics. The TW is seen as a trailblazer for a new global social policy, a new model for a new millennium (e.g. McGuire, 1998/9). One of the main blueprints for the new politics (Giddens, 1998) has been translated into many languages. A number of international meetings in Paris and Florence have discussed the TW. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder issued a joint paper, ‘The Third Way/Die Neue Mitte’ (Blair and Schröder, 1999) that was drafted by Peter Mandelson and Bodo Hombach. Hombach's book has been translated into English as ‘The New Centre’ (Hombach, 2000), with a preface by Tony Giddens and an introduction by Mark Leonard.

The European political landscape in the 1990s was characterised by centre-left parties returning to power in several countries after long periods in opposition. Following intensive internal debates over policy direction and policy revision, once back in power some centre-left governments in some countries have used terms such as the ‘third way’ and ‘new social democracy’, or the ‘Neue Mitte’ as an indication that contemporary policies should be seen as distinct from those pursued by both previous social democratic administrations and neo-liberal governments in the interim (e.g. Gamble and Wright, 1999; White, 2001). What, if anything, exactly constitutes the ‘third way’ has been a matter of considerable debate, as has been the question of how far traditional social democratic values and aspirations, such as solidarity and equality, are still relevant within ‘third way’ policies. More than previously, modern social democratic policy is geared towards reducing non-wage labour costs, fostering private forms of social protection, such as funded pensions, intensifying labour market integration and subsidising low-skilled jobs, but also incorporating new social risks and new social needs (Vandenbrouke, 2001).

C.A.R. Crosland (1956) The Future of Socialism, Jonathan Cape, London.

Donald Sassoon (1997), One Hundred Years of Socialism, HarperCollins London. (First published by I.B.Tauris in 1996).

John Callaghan (2000), The Retreat of Social Democracy, Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Between them these three books provide an excellent overview of the theory and practice of social democracy as it has twisted and turned over the past century. As Sassoon reminds us in his magisterial review of the West European left, revisionism of one kind or another has been a constant feature of socialist discourse. The key question has always been whether such revisions have helped to bring about the transformation of capitalism (or, perhaps more realistically, its humanisation) or, in contrast, helped to secure its long-term survival. The first, and arguably the most controversial, revisionism of social democratic thought occurred in Germany at the end of the nineteenth century.